THE ASSAULT BY MR. BROOKS ON MR. SISINER, 





SPEECH 



' ( 


DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 12, 185G. 


Tlie House having Tinder consideration the report of the 
coimnittee on the alleged assault of Hon. Preston S. 
Brooks on Hon. Charles Sumner, of the Senate : 

Mr. ETHERIDGE said: 

Mr. Speaker: I do not desire, to consume un~ 
necessarily the time of the House. 1 shall be 
brief in what I wish to say. 1 do not propose to ' 
consider the questions which have been r.aised, 
and Y/hich have been so fully discussed by others. 
The range of debate has been very wide, and the 
points raised in the argument very numerous—so 
much so, that I cannot do more than advert very 
briefly to some few of them. First, we have 
those who advocate or defend the efficacy of the 
bludgeon; others, who, professing to be lawyers, 
insist that the House has no jxirisdiciion over the 
case; and others again, who will be satisfied with 
nothing less than a sentence of expulsion. Upon 
the first of these propositions, I think I shall be 
able, in view of an arrangement I have made, to 
give great satisfaction to "that portion of my con¬ 
stituents who, for th,e last two years, have pro¬ 
fessed to be so sorely exercised about what they 
have been pleased to call my “unsoundness” 
upon the slavery question. They are few in num¬ 
ber, I admit, but they will doubtless be delighted 
to know, that, upon this occasion, I am very 
much for the South, in proof of which I point 
them to the fact that I have “ paired oft” with 
tiL’o northern gentlemen; I allude to the member 
from Ohio, [Mr. Leiter,] and thp member from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Edie,] who will aggregate 
not loss than five hundred pounds, avoirdupois. 
Should a general free fight occur here, I can neu¬ 
tralize these gentlemen by simply commanding 
them to “ keep the peace.” [Laughter.] If any 
southern gentleman can show a better arrange¬ 
ment for his section than I have made, I should 
like to know it. I see gentlemen laugh; it is a 
good symptoip. I have read somewhere—and I 
have seen it copied in the National Intelligencep— 
“ Blessed are the peace-makers.” We are now 
in rather bad temper, and we need the kind offices 
of the peace-maker. I know, however, that 


/- ■ I 

f 


nothing I may say in regard to this benevolent 
class of persons w'ill bo regarded by any gentle¬ 
man here as “personal,” or call him up to an 
“ explanation.” 

The case before us has excited a high degree 
of interest throughout the country—less from the 
facts of the unfortunate transaction, than because 
of its supposed connection with other matters,, 
about which the jiublic mind has been highly 
excited for the last two years. But we should 
derive consolation from the reflection that this is 
not the first time we have had intense party and 
sectional feeling aroused. The debates in Con¬ 
gress during the last ten or fifteen' years, will 
show that, in the opinions of many public men, 
we have been all the while on the verge of dis¬ 
ruption— that some particular section v/as sorely 
oppressed, and the public liberty in danger. 

“ The end is not yet,” however, and I still have 
faith in the good fortunes of my country. When¬ 
ever it shall appear that there is danger to our 
institutions, the people, the real people, who are 
attached to the Government for its blessings, and 
Vv^ho have an interest in its preservation, will be 
found both able and willing to preserve and take 
care of it. All will yet be well, in spite of those 
who too soon despair, or recklessly peril our in¬ 
ternal peace. 

The case is this: A member is arraigned for 
alleged improper conduct. Some have character¬ 
ized it as a mere “ chunk of a fight;” others as 
an assault and battery; while not a few have 
spoken of it as a “ murderous attack upon a Sen¬ 
ator,” and a “ blow at the freedom of speech.” 
The reportof the majority of the committee have 
declared the assault of the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Brooks] upon Senator Sumxer to 
have been “ not only a breach of the privileges 
of the Senator assaded, and that of the Senate 
and House, as declared by the Constitution, but 
as an act of disorderly behavior.” They have 
therefore i’eported the following: 

“ Resolved, Tliat Preston S. Brooks be, and he is forth- .. 
vvitli, expelled from this House as a Representative from the 
State of South Carolina.” 










2 


The minority of the committee have reported 
upon the facts, and recommended the adoption 
of tliis resolution: 

^‘Resolved, Tlifit. tliis House has no jurisdiction over the 
assault alleged to iiave been coininitted by the Hon. Pres¬ 
ton S. Brooks, a ujeniber of this House from the State of 
South Carolina, upon the Hon. Charles Sumner, a Sen¬ 
ator from the State of Massachusetts; and therefore deem 
it improper to express any opinion on the subject.” 

The majority of the committee have also re¬ 
ported a resolution censuring Messrs. Keitt and 
Edmondson. 

As, from present appearances, I shall be almost 
alone from the South, in the vote I shall give 
upon the question of jurisdiction, I shall speak 
to the report of the minority and the resolution 
recommended by that report, and which asserts 
that the House has no jurisdiction.” This, 
sir, is purely a legal question, one which law¬ 
yers ought to be most competent to decide. 
Yet, in determining this question, members from 
the South are rallying in a body to one legal con¬ 
clusion, while the members from the free States 
are concentrating with like unanimity in the 
other direction, as if there was anything in cli¬ 
mate, latitude, or longitude, which ought to con¬ 
trol the judgment of a lawyer in determining a 
legal question. Is it possible that all the wisdom 
is in one section, and all the madness and folly 
in the other Sir, the very appearance of things 
in this Hall, the almost undivided front which 
each section presents at a time when we are 
attempting to arrive at a correct legal determina¬ 
tion, should make us distrustful. I have seen 
the passions of individuals aroused to madness, 
the prejudices of parties and sections inflamed, 
until madness would seem to rule the hour. 
In cases of this kind, if considered with refer¬ 
ence to individuals or parlies, the line of duty 
for a good man is not often found in yielding to 
the extreme opinions of either side. The path 
of wisdom, of safety, and of right, is not often 
strictly followed by those who feel, too strongly, 
the pressure of sectional or party demands. I 
think, sir, ifis so now. We partake somewhat 
of the excitement which prevailed here at the 
time of the occurrence. It unfortunately per¬ 
vades the country now, and has been increased, 
in both sections of the country, by means I 
regard as reprehensible. 

I have heard most of the speeches made during 
the last four days. I find, as I before remarked, 
the South and the North arrayed against each 
other. Every southern member has denied the 
jurisdiction of the House. Every northern 
speaker has asserted it. I dislike to difter with 
members from my own section of the Confeder¬ 
acy; but, in my judgment, they are misled by 
the minority report, and I cannot vote with them. ] 
The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Boyce] 
who has just spoken, devoted his whole argument 
to a denial of our jurisdiction. To his reasoning 
and his conclusions I cannot subscribe. His col¬ 
league, [Mr, Brooks,] I am sure, does not desire 
to rest his defense upon a legal technicality, and 
I shall not place it there. 

The South has long ago taken its position upon 
the point of power; its record is made up upon 
the question of jurisdiction. Upon that record 
our own section, our predecessors, are fully com¬ 
mitted, Our most eminent living statesmen have 
asserted and exercised power similar, in most 



respects, to that which I now claim for this body. 
It was exercised against northern men, and I pro¬ 
test now against a change of our position, when 
the same power is sought to be used against a 
gentleman from the South. Itis not the first time 
1 have had to protest against an abandonment of 
that to which my own section stood committed. 
Two years ago I resisted the favorite measure of 
this Administration—the repeal of the Missouri 
compromise. It was the beginning of all our 
present troubles. The case before the House is a 
sequel to it. History, I think, has already vin¬ 
dicated the wisdom of my conduct, and I now 
feel anything but regret at the course I then pur¬ 
sued. 

I know it has become the fashion of late, with 
a certain class of public men, to attach but little, 
if any, importance to precedents, whether legis¬ 
lative or judicial; laws, however old, precedents, 

I however numerous and well considered, if in 
the way of the opinions of gentlemen, are dis¬ 
posed of by the general allegation that they are 
“ not binding,” or, as is most generally the case, 
“unconstitutional.” The latter charge is re¬ 
garded by some as perfectly conclusive in almost 
every variety of case — everything, almost, of 
late, is set down as “ unconstitutional.” I once 
heard an argument between a Whig and a Dem¬ 
ocrat, as to the propriety of a measure before 
Congress. The Whig seemed to have the better 
of the argument, when the Democrat, with a 
complacent smile playing upon his face,as though 
he had made some new discovery, said: “See 
here, it is unconstitutional.” “ Oh, no,” replied 
the Whig, “the constitutionality of the measure 
has been expressly determined by the Supreme 
Court of the United States.” “ It cannot be pos¬ 
sible,” said the Democrat. “ It is certainly so,” 
replied iheWhig. “ But what if it did so decide ?” 
said the Democrat, rather indignantly, “does not 
everybody knoio the Supreme Court itself is uncon¬ 
stitutional ?” [Laughter.] 

Now, if I were to pile precedent upon prece¬ 
dent, and decision upon decision, some gentleman 
would coolly tell you: “Oh! precedents do not 
amount to anything—they bind no one besides 
those who made them.” I live in a State where 
precedents and judicial decisions are highly re¬ 
garded—where the peoply are taught the neces¬ 
sity of sustaining them. Here, it would appear 
that nothing is settled, unless it be that every 
thing is unsettled. If precedents or judicial de¬ 
cisions are wrong, or prove oppressive to the 
rights or liberties of the people, they know the 
ballot-box is the place to apply the remedy, and 
they will apply it whenever a proper case occurs. 
Many of the people of the State from which I 
I come will remember the exciting times of 1832 
and 1833, when the danger of a collision between 
South Carolina and the Federal Government was 
imminent. I do not mention this to criticise the 
causes which produced the troubles of that day, 
but to show how the people of that State were 
at this perilous juncture in our history. Public 
meetings were held all over the State to consider 
the condition of public affairs, and to give ex¬ 
pression to the sentiment of the ^people. 1 now 
remember two of those meetings—one of which 
was palled at Nashville, and the other at Colum¬ 
bia—both convened at the instance of the most 
' reputable men of the State. Over t]ie first, Gov- 















3 


ernor Carroll, well known to fame, presided; the 
secretary of the other was A. O. P. Nicholson, 
Esq., thepresenteditorof the Washington Union, 
the recognized organ of the Administration which 
is soon to close. At each of these meetings strong 
resolutions were passed, approving the conduct 
of President Jackson, and declaring, among other 
things— 

“ Tliat all acts passed by the requisite majority of Con¬ 
gress, and approved by tile President, do thereby become 
the laws of the land, and that the only mode of testing 
their validity known to the Constitution of the United 
States, isby a decision of the Federal Judiciary, and if they 
are there decided to be constitutional, it becomes the duty 
of the Government to see that they be faithfully executed, 
peaceably if it can, but forcibly if it must: and that every 
attempt by an organized force to resist their execution will 
be treason.” 

I know this resolution has no apparent relevancy 
to the question before the House, yet the present 
times are suggestive of contingencies, in which 
the sentiments it breathes may be properly con¬ 
sidered. 

Notwithstanding numerous precedents maybe 
cited, (and I shall hereafter refer to some of them 
in support of the jurisdiction of the House,) the 
minority report disposes of the w'hole of them in 
this summary way. They say ; 

“ Although we have been unable to acquiesce in the prin¬ 
ciples of all the precedents which are to be found in the 
history of Congress, yet we find it unnecessary, in the con¬ 
sideration of this branch of the subject, to assail any of 
those precedents, as none have gone to the extent now 
claimed—of one House assuming Jurisdiction over the priv¬ 
ileges of the other, for the purpose of alfording protection 
to them.” 

The majority of the committee also declined to 
look into the precedents. They say they did not 
deem it necessary, as they regarded the question 
of privilege as being settled by the raising of the j 
committee by the House. Then, sir, neither 
from the majority or minority report can we get 
any information as to the past action of Congress | 
in cases of this kind, and each member is left i 
to pursue the investigation for himself. If the 
minority report, submitted by the gentleman 
from Georgia, [Mr. Cobb,] is right—if his rea¬ 
soning is correct and the conclusion to which he 
arrives, the law of the case, then I do not hesitate 
to say, that the past action of both Houses of 
Congress, in cases which I regard as not differ¬ 
ent in principle from the present one, has been 
to override the Constitution. I desire to refer 
southern gentlemen, who deny the power of the 
House, to the action of this body within the last 
few years, in two cases which obtained notoriety 
at the time. I allude to the cases of Mr. Adams, 

. of Massachusetts, and the senior gentleman from 
Ohio, [Mr. Giddings.] 

On the 25th of January, 1842, Mr. John Guincy 
Adams presented a “petition to dissolve the 
Union.” It was signed by fifty persons. As 
* soon as it was read, Mr. Holmes said: 

“This is a petition for the dissolution of the Union.” 

To this remark, Mr. Adams replied: 

“ r move its reference to a select committee, with in¬ 
structions to report an aiiswuTr to the petitioners, showing 
the reasons why the prayer of it ought not to be granted.” 

I cite this case to meet the argument of the 
gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Boyce.] 
He—following up the minority report—is of opin¬ 
ion that no offense can be committed outside of 
the House, of which it would have jurisdiction, 


until that offense is defined by some rule of the 
House, and a penalty imposed for its violation. 
The minority, in their report, say: 

“The admission of such a right would constitute either 
House of Congress a legislative, judicial, and an executive 
power combined ; having the power of aljcgislature to pass 
the law, the power of a judge to expound it, and the power 
to execittd it. A rtiore perfect despotism never has and 
never can exist (han-^if such be the fact—does exist in 
either branch of Congress. 

“ To appreciate properly the enormity of this power, and 
the abuse to which its exercise rniglit lead, it is only neces¬ 
sary to add, that from the very nature of the case, this law, 
thus made, and thus enforced, is an ex post facto law, direct¬ 
ly violative of the letter of the Constitution, and repugnant 
to the whole spirit of our American institutions.” 

Now, if offenses must first be defined by rules 
of the House, and penalties attached for their 
violation, I ask what rule of the House did Mr. 
Adams violate, when he presented this petition.^ 
It was never alleged that his “ behavior” was 
“disorderly;” nor did he make any offensive 
remark at the time he offered the petition. The 
only restriction which the rules of the House then 
imposed upon the right of petition was the cel¬ 
ebrated 21st rule, which prohibited the reception 
of petitions, memorials, and resolutions, “pray¬ 
ing the abolition of slavery in the District of 
Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave 
trade between the States or Territories of the 
United States.” Mr. Adams did not violate this 
rule. We all know Mr. Adams was a sort of 
monomaniac on the right of petition; and I have 
heard it said that, on one occasion, he submitted 
a petition from some slaves in Virginia, asking 
for his own expulsion fi-om the House. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I will correct the gentleman, 
as to a historical fi\ct, if he will allow me. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Certainly. If wrong, I 
shall be glad to be corrected. 

Mr. GIDDINGS. I only wish to say, as a 
matter of history, that Mv. Adams presented no 
such petition. He only asked the Speaker 
whether it would be in order to present it.^ 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I stand corrected. I was 
not here at the time, though, I have no doubt, I 
ought to have been. [Great laughter.] 

immediately after Mr. Adams had presented 
the petition to which I first referred, Mr. Gil¬ 
mer, of Virginia—I am glad he was from Vir¬ 
ginia, for my Democratic friends from that State 
are always sound upon the Constitution, “as 
th(;y understand it,” familiar with the resolu¬ 
tions of 1798, and well acquainted with the secret 
debates—Mr. Gilmer, I say, offered a resolution 
censuring Mr. Adams. It is very modest in its 
terms. Virginia statesmen are always modest 
[Laughter.] Here is the whole of it: 

“ Resolved, That in presenting to the consideration of this 
tlouse a petition for the dissolution of the Union, the mem¬ 
ber trom iMa.ssachusetts [Mr. Adams] ha.s justly iucurr<Hi the 
censure of this House.” 

Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, moved as a sub¬ 
stitute, resolutions of censure, which were pre¬ 
faced by a preamble, which Mr. Adams t c (It i (d 
amounted to a charge of treason and subrtiYiation 
of perjury. These resolutions were debated for 
fourteen days. Mr. Wise, of Virginia, spoke for 
several hours, hurling at Mr. Adams one of those 
terrible philippics for which he has been some¬ 
what distinguished, and which,perhaps, no other 
man, under" the same circumstances, could have 
withstood so well as Mr. Adams. Finally, after 


















4 


the patience of the whole country had been ex- 
Imusted, the whole subject was laid on the table j 
by a vote of 106 yeas to 93 nays; almost the entire : 
North voting in the affirmative, and the South, 
with but very few exceptions, voting in the nega- ' 
tive, thereby asserting the jurisdiction of this i 
House, and a desire to inflict its judgment of cen- [ 
sure. The resolution declared that Mr, Adams j 
merited expulsion, and censure was sought to be 
inflicted as an act of “ grace and mercy.” 

It will be perceived, sir, that the action of the 
House,'in the case of Mr, Adams, was based upon 
the opinion that, in presenting a petition which i 
breathed disloyalty to the Union, he was guilty j 
of an offense which degraded him in the estima- i 
tion of his associates, and rendered him the sub¬ 
ject of just reprehension. It was not then denied j 
that the House could expel or censui'e a member i 
who was regarded as personally offensive, and j 
whose presence it did not desire. ! 

This case of Mr. Adams discloses another fa'ct, j 
that he rested his defense upon similar grounds [ 
to those on which the minority of the committee , 
rely ■when denying the jurisdiction of the House j 
in the present case. The minority have pointed ; 
to the fifth amendment of the Constitution, as j 
conclusively denying our power or jurisdiction. 
That amendment declares: i 

“ No persoaishall be held to answer for a capital, or otli- 
erwise infamous crime, unless on a ]>resentment or indict¬ 
ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in tlie land or i 
naval forces, or in the militia, wlien in actual service in i 
time of war or public danger;' nor slial! any person be sub- j 
ject for the same oliense to be twice put in jeopardy of life n 
or limb, nor shall be compeHed in any ciiininal case to be a J 
witness agaijist himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or i' 
property, without due process of law.” jj 

Mr. Adams, when on trial before the House, ! 
rested his defense upon a denial of the jurisdic-ll 
tion of this body. The point now raised by the 
minority report is not new. I read from the j 
Congressional Globe, vol. 2, part I, second ses- j 
sion Twenty-Seventh Congress, p. 180: 1 

‘‘ The Speaker gave the lloor to Mr. Limlerwood ; but Mr. 
Adams rose and demaiuled the Inmelits of the sixth article of } 
the ameiidmeuts to ihe Constitution of tlie United States, j 
wliieh said article is in tlie I'ollovving words : I 

“‘In all criminal prosecutions, the ticcuscd shall enjoy | 
the right to a speedy and pulilic trial by an impartial jury ] 
of the State and district wlierein the crime shall have been , 
committed, tvliich district shall have been previously ascer- j 
lained by law; and to lx; informed of tlie nature :ind cause J 
of the, accusation ; to he conr'rontial with the witnesses I 
against him ; to have compulsory (irocess for olitaiuing wit 
nesses in his favor, and to have tlie assistance of counsel j 
I'or his defense.’ j 

“And iMr. Adams desired that the motion might he entered i 
on the Journal.” j 

Here we find, sir, that Mr. Adams rested his j 
defense upon a denial of power and jurisdiction; | 
yet 1 am not aware that any member of that Con- i 
gress coincided with him in ojhnion, while almost ! 
every member from the South voted against lay- ! 
ing the resolution of censure upon the t;ible. 1 
Among the negative votes, the names of the fol¬ 
lowing from Tennessee are to be found : Jlaron 
r. Brown, Milton Brown, William B. Campbell, 
Carutliers, Gentry, Turney, Walterson, and C. H. 
Vtilliums. 

The session of 1841-’42, seems to have been 
prolific in matters of this kind. It was during 
this session that the genlleinaii from Ohio [Mr. , 
Giddings] got himself into a similar difiiculty. | 
It was a most unfortunate one tor the country | 
in many respects, the chief of which was, that j 


the alfair was so managed as to make the old 
political sinner a “ fixture ” in this body, 1 fear, 
for life. [Laughter.] The House adopted a res¬ 
olution of censure. He fell that he was a mar¬ 
tyr. He then became indignant, and resigned 
his commission, which enabled him to unite the 
qualities of martyr and hero. The result of it 
all has been, that his constituents have ever since 
retained him here for the inspection of the curi¬ 
ous and inquisitive, [Laughter.] I predict, sir, 
that Mr. Sumner, who is regarded by the people 
of Massachusetts as a sort of martyr to the cause 
of human liberty, will be long retained in the 
Senate, and that the gentleman from South Car¬ 
olina [Mr. Brooks] will be also a member of that 
body, and successor to his venerable relative, 
whose name has been identified with this unfor¬ 
tunate affair. Each of those gentlemen will be 
the gainers, politically, by the occurrence. Be¬ 
yond this, nothing else will result from it, except 
the temporary political capital which is being 
manufactured for the Presidential campaign. 

Fighting, however reprehensible, is never con¬ 
sidered dishonorable, especially if one gets the 
best of it. The sympathies of the world are 
always with him who comes off “first best.” 
Let two gentlemen go out in the presence of a 
crowd to test their manhood, or settle a difficulty, 
by “ a fair free fight,” and you will always find 
everybody crowding around and congratulating 
the fellow who chances to be victorious. The 
poor devil who has to cry “enough!” is often 
left without a friend to “hold a pan for him.” 
[Great laughter.] Sir, I speak the truth; and 
we are dignifying this affair without a corre¬ 
sponding benefit to the country. 

I must return to the case of the gentleman from 
Ohio, [Mr. Giddings.] On the 2Ist of jMarch, 
1842, he presented a series of resolutions, some 
of which related to the mutiny of slaves on the 
brig Creole. The reading of the resolutions pro¬ 
duced much excitement in the House at the time, 
and Mr. Giddings withdrew them. It was said 
that the resolutions justified mutiny and murder; 
and Air, Bolts, to test the sense of the Blouse, 
submitted the following: 

“ Resolved, That tins Ilou.se holds the conduct of the said 
member as altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and 
(teserviua: tlie severe, condemnation of the people of this 
coinitrj', and of this bodj' in particular.” 

This affair led to a debate quite as violent, 
though less protracted thati that which attended 
the trial of Air. Adams. On the next day the 
vote was taken and the resolution adopted—yeas 
j 125, nays 69—every southern member but Air. 
j Underw’ood, of Kentucky, I believe, voting in the 
! affirmative. Now, sir, 1 should be pleased if 
I some of my southern friends would point out the 
I rule of the House, the statute, or common law, or 
I any clause of the Constitution which was violated 
by the member from Ohio in oflering the resolu¬ 
tions I have named. There was no ]iretense that 
ihe had been guilty of “ disorderly behavior.” 
The censure was rightfully based on the right 
which this House has tb punish a member, whose 
conduct is such as to unfit him for his public 
I duties, or whose opinions or general character 
I may be such as to render him odious. The power 
to censure involves the power of expulsion, were 
the House disposed to inflict that punishment. 

1 Our power, Air, Speaker, over cases of this 





















5 


t 


kind is derived from that clause of the Constitu¬ 
tion which reads as follows: 

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, 
punisli its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the 
concurrence of two thirds, expefa member.” 

It is argued by the gentleman from South Car¬ 
olina [Mr. Boyce] and others, that the power to 
“determine rules,” to punish for “disorderly 
behavior,” and to “ expel a member,” must be 
construed in pari materia; that rules must first be 
adopted by the House, and penalties imposed for 
their violation, and that the power to punish for 
“ disorderly behavior,” and to “ expel a mem¬ 
ber,” can only be exercised by the House with 
reference to such rules as may be adopted and 
violated by members. Now, sir, I do not sub¬ 
scribe to this reasoning. Suppose you were at¬ 
tempting to explain this part of the Constitution 
to a child, you might, without doing any violence 
to its meaning, read it thus: “ Each House may 
determine the rules of its proceedings— each House 
may punish its members for disorderly behavior 
—each House may, with the concurrence of two 
thirds, expel a member.” First, we have the 
power to adopt the rules of our proceedings—we 
have done this—and we have a volume of rules 
which relate, almost exclusively, to the order of 
actual business. We then have the power to 
punish for “disorderly behavior;” but gentlemen 
speak of this power as if it was only for a viola¬ 
tion of the rules of the Flouse. If the argument 
of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Boyce] be correct, the Constitution should read: 
“ Each Flouse may determine the rules of its 
proceedings, and punish members for a violation 
thereof but the punishment spoken of is for 
“ disorderly behavior.” What, sir, is meant by 
“ disorderly behavior.^” It was decided here, a 
few days ago, that the Bible is good authority. 

I think so, and I go further. I humbly submit 
that Webster’s Dictionary for many purposes 
is, also, good authority. The North and the 
South, 1 think, will be agreed on this, though the 
author was a northern man. Webster gives the 
meaning of “ disorderly” thus: “ Lawless; con¬ 
trary to law; violating or disposed to violate law 
and good order.” Now let us substitute Web¬ 
ster’s definition of “ disorderly” for the words, 
“disorderly behavior.” The Constitution would 
then read: “ Each Flouse may determine the 
rules of its proceedings, punish its members for 
that which is lawless, contrary to law, violating or 
disposed to violate law and good order.” 

Lastly, each House, “ with the concurrence of 
two thirds, may expel a inember.” The word 
“ punish,” as used in the Constitution, is a. gen¬ 
eric term; it includes censure, reprimand, sus¬ 
pension, ana expulsion. There is no restraint 
upon the House until it attempts to pass a judg¬ 
ment of expulsion. A majority of the House 
may censure, reprimand, or suspend; but when 
we expel we must have a vote of two thirds, because 
it is so written in the Constitution. This restraint 
is imposed upon our power—it is the only one 
which the Constitution imposes—but none what¬ 
ever is imposed upon our discretion. That ife 
left wutli the House; and each case must be tried 
and determined upon its own merits, and the 
House must judge for itself if it deserves the se¬ 
vere punishment of expulsion. This power is j 
not so much necessary to punish the offending j 


member, as to enable the Flouse to get clear of 
his presence, and protect itself. 

It has been urged in argument, that if the 
Flouse is left to its own discretion, and may de¬ 
termine for what cause it will expel, it will soon 
1 become a despotism-, overriding the Constitution, 
and prostrating the liberties of the people! If 
this were so, it does not prove our want of power 
or jurisdiction, but only that it may be abused. 
But, sir, discretion must be lodged somewhere; 
it is lodged in the executive, legislative, and judi- 
I cial departments of the Government for many 
purposes, and no doubt has been often abused; 
but 1 challenge gentlemen to show me any depart- 
menf of this Government, to which a discretion¬ 
ary power is given by the Constitution or laws, 
which has been exempt from popular complaint. 
If any has been wholly so, it has been the two 
Houses of Congress in matters of this kind. 
Your present Executive is denounced every day 
for alleged abuse of his constitutional discretion. 
Your Supreme Judiciary has been charged with 
deciding cases in obedience to the behests of the 
slave power. Your officials, everywhere, are 
charged with abuses in matters involving their 
discretion; but who has ever heard either House 
of Congress censured for expelling or punishing 
a member.^ I admit this power may be abused, 
but it has not yet been so, and numerous cases 
may be cited which, while they prove our juris¬ 
diction, disprove the probability that it will ever 
be used as an instrument of oppression. 

If the absence of jurisdiction or power is to be 
inferred because it may be abused, the same ob¬ 
jection would apply to other things. The same 
Constitution which authorizes this House to 
I “ expel a member,” gives Congress power “ to 
declare war.” It is granted without limitation or 
restraint. It is easily abused, and a wanton ex¬ 
cise of it might be attended with most disastrous 
consequences. We have never exercised it with¬ 
out incurring the displeasure of a portion of the 
people. Why, sir, your war with Great Britain 
in 1812 was denounced by some of our most 
eminent statesmen. If I remember rightly, Mr. 
Buchanan, the pre.sent Democratic candidate for 
the Presidency, questioned its wisdom and de¬ 
plored the rashness which he regarded as pro¬ 
ducing it. In speaking of the war of 1812, Mr. 
Buchanan said: 

“ It tonic its rise from tlic overioeenins; partiality luhich the 
I Democratic party have uiiifoniily shown lor France, and the 
j consequent hatred which they fell against her great adver- 
sar\', England. To secure this foreign ivjiucnce hasheenthc 
j labor of their leaders far more than twenty years, and well 
1 have they been repaid for their trouble,/u?- it has been one 
j of the principal causes for introducing and continuing them 
, i'll power. Immediately before the war, this foreign in¬ 
fluence HAD COMPLETELY EMBODIED ITSELF WITH EVERY 
POLITICAL FEELING OF A MAJORITY IN THE WeST; ITS VOICE 
WAS HEARD SO LOUD AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT that the 

President icas obliged to yield to its dictates or retire from 
office. The choice in this alternative was easily made by 
a man (.Madison) who preferred his private interest 

TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.” ****** 

‘‘Tiie very Capitol of the United States, the lofty temple 
of liberty, which was reared and consecrated by Washing¬ 
ton, has been abandoned to its fate by his degenerate succes¬ 
sor, (Madison,) who ought to have shed his last drop of blood 
in its defense.” 

Take again the late war with Mexico. A very 
large party in this country pronounced it un¬ 
wise and unnecessary. They declared it ought 
to have been avoided; but that party was accused 
in return of moral treason, and of giving “ aid 

















and comfort to the enemy.” Suppose, sir, Con¬ 
gress should at this session declare that, whereas 
the late bombardment of Greytown was a most 
brilliant military achievement, and has estab¬ 
lished our naval superiority throughout the world; 
and whereas 'all the rest of mankind should be 
subservient to our authority; suppose, sir, for 
no better or other reasons, we were to declare 
war against all the nations, Powers, and princi¬ 
palities throughout the world, what would be the 
judgment of mankind ? Yet, sir, this, or some¬ 
thing equally ridiculous, might occur; but will it 
be insisted that, because such an insane folly 
might be perpetrated, w'e therefore have no power 
“ to declare war?” 

If the argument as to the power of the House 
to expel a member is to prevail, it will' have to 
be applied, 1 suppose, to the discretionary power 
of Congress to declare war. In that event, we | 
should adopt rules and regulations forthwith, 
specifying for what particular provocation we 
will draw the sw’ord, and what forfeitures, pen¬ 
alties, and punishments we will inflict on those 
w^ho transgress our regulations. Nothing, I sup¬ 
pose, will be hereafter left to the discretion of 
Congress, for fear that discretion may lead to 
abuse. 

I will now briefly recur to some of the cases 
in which both Houses of Congress have asserted 
jurisdiction. About the year 1831, Sam Hous¬ 
ton was tried and reprimanded for an assault 
upon a member from Ohio. The assault oc¬ 
curred out of the House, and when it was not 
sitting. 

In 1797, William Blount, a Senator from Ten¬ 
nessee, w'as expelled by a vote which wanted 
but one to be unanimous. His offense was an 
attempt to bribe an agent among the Indians. 
Judge Story (at page 299, 2 Commentai'ies on | 
the Constitution) says of this case: j 

“ Tt was not a statutable offense ; nor was it committed 
in his official character; nor was it committed daring the j 
session of Congress; nor at the seat of Government.” * * i 
“ It seems, therefore, to be settled by tlie Senate, upon full I 
deliberation, that expulsion may be for any misdemeanor 
which, tkoagh not punisluihle by any statute, is inconsistent 
with the trust and duty of a Senator.” 

The same author says of the case of John 
Smith, (a Senator,) whose expulsion was moved 
in 1808, for supposed connection with the de¬ 
signs of Aaron Burr, and which failed by one 
vote: , 

“ The precise ground of the failure of the motion does not 
appear; but it may be gathered from the arguments of 
counsel, that it did not turn upon any doubt that the power 
of the Senate extended to cases of misdemeanor not done 
in the presence or view of the body.”— Ibid., 300. 

And, commenting further upon these cases, that 
learned justice says: 

“The power to expel a member is not, in the British 
House of Commons, confined to offenses committed by the 
party as a member, or during the session of Parliatnent; 
but it extends to all cases where the offense is such as, iti 
the judgment of the House, unfits him for parliamentary 
duty.”—Jiid., 300, 301. 

The report of the case of Anderson vs. Dunn 
(6 Wheaton, 204—231) discloses the following; 
facts: Anderson, who was not a member, at- i 
tempted to bribe a Representative, for which he 
was arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms, in obedi¬ 
ence to an order of the House. Anderson for 
this brought an action for false imprisonment. 
In delivering the opinion, the court say: 


“ It is certainly true that there is no power given by the 
Constitution to either IHuise to punish for contempts, except 
when committed by their own members. Nor does the 
judicial or criminal power given to the United States in any 
part expressly extend to the infliction of punishment for 
contempts of either House, or any coordinate brand) of the 
Government. Shall we, therefore, decide that no such 
power exists? 

“ The idea is titopian that government can exist without 
leaving the exercise of discretion somewhere. Public se¬ 
curity agaijist the abuse of stich discretion must lest on 
responsibility, and stated appeals to the public approbation. 
VVheie all power is derived fiom the people, and public 
functionaries, at short intervals, deposit it at the feet of the 
people, to be resumed again only at their will, individual 
fears may be alarmed by the monstkrs of imagination, 
but individual liberty can be in little danger.” * * “The 
scienee of government is the most abstruse of all sciences, 
if, indeed, that can he called a science which has but few 
fixed principles, and practically consists in little more than 
the exeicise of a sound discretion, applied to the exigen¬ 
cies of the State as they arise. It is the science of experi¬ 
ment.” * * “I’he puWic functionaries must be left free 
to exercise the powers which the people have intrusted to 
them.” 

“ That a deliberative assembly, clothed with the -tnajesty 
of the people, and charged with the care of all that is dear 
to thorn, composed of the most distinguished citizens, 
selected and drawn together from every quarter of <1 great 
nation, whose deliberations are required by the public opin¬ 
ion to be conducted under the eye of the public, !ind whose 
decisions mu-st he clothed with all that sanctity which 
unlimited confidence in their wisdom and purity can in¬ 
spire,—that such an assembly should not possess the power 
to suppress rudeness, or to repel insult, is a supposition too 
wild to be suggested. And accordingly,'to avoid the pres¬ 
sure of these considerations, it has been urged that the 
right of the respective Houses to exclude from their pres¬ 
ence, and their absolute control within their own walls, 
convey with them the right to punish contempts committeii 
in their presence.” 

The action of both Houses of Congress has 
been, since the foundation of the Government, to 
assert an unquestioned jurisdiction in matters of 
this kind. It has also the sanction of higli ju¬ 
dicial authority. It is too late now to repudiate 
our past action, when it is sanctioned by such 
high authority, and sustained so well by reason. 

It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that if iliis ques¬ 
tion of jurisdiction were submitted to any law¬ 
yer who has been for ten years with a reasonable 
practice, or to any of our most respectable circuit 
judges, it would give them no embarrassmenL 
They are, generally, better lawyers than members 
of Congress. There is something in the atmos¬ 
phere about Washington, not very favorable to 
the development of legal talent. [Laughter.] 

The report of the majority of the committee 
arrives at conclusions to which I am reluctant to 
consent. Undue importance is, perhaps, given 
to the complaint which the Senate sent down to 
the House. The Senate has reported to the 
House: 

1. “ That the Hon. Prkston S. Brooks, a member of tire 
House of Representatives from the State of South Carolina, 
did, on the 22d day of the present month, after the adjourn^ 
ment of the Senate, and while Mr. Sumnisr was seated at 
his d(!sk in the Senate Chamber, assault him with consid- 
er:ible violence, striking him numerous blows on or about 
the head with a walking-stick, which cut his head, and dis¬ 
abled him for the time being from attending to his duties in 
the Senate. 

2. “ That this assault was a breach of the privileges of the 
Senate. 

3. “ That ‘ the Senate, for a breach of its privileges, can¬ 
not anest a member of the House of Representatives, and, 
H fortiori, cannot try and punish him ; that such authority 
devolves upon the House of which he is a member;’ and 
therefore, ‘ that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Sen¬ 
ate, and can only be punished by the House of Representa¬ 
tives, of which Mr. Brooks is a member.’ 

“ The committee therefore report back the complaint of 
tlie Senate, with the journal of their proceedings and tire 
















. 7 


testimony taken in the premises, pursuant to the resolution 
of the House.” 

Our power to act in this matter is certainly 
independent of the Senate’s proceedings. It was 
very proper in that body to refer the matter to 
the House, and it furnishes an additional reason 
for our talcing cognizance of the assault. The 
circumstance that the violence was offered to the 
person of a Senator, and in the Senate Chamber, 
while it adds nothing to the jurisdiction of the 
House, will, and ought to be, considered with 
reference to tlm measure of punishment. 

Mr. Speaker, I shall not vote for the resolution 
of expulsion. I have many reasons, the chief 
of which is, that it will do no good. If the gen¬ 
tleman from South Carolina [Mr. Brooks] had 
intended to kill the Senator—if he had done so, or 
death had ensued from the blows—I should not 
hesitate for a moment in imposing the severest 
judgmentof this House, in addition to the punish¬ 
ment which the courts can inflict. But he had no 
such intention. His resentment was aroused, just¬ 
ly, as he supposed. His blood was up—whether 
from real or supposed wrong it is not necessary 
for me now to inquire, as the effect on him was 
the same—and, thus maddened by what he re¬ 
garded as a libel upon his State and kindred, he 
sought the Senator, not for the purpose of taking 
his life, but to degrade him by punishment. Such 
is the object of all men who attempt the infliction 
of personal violence in the presence of the public. 
Deeply aroused as he was, no doubt the assault 
was more violent than he intended—so much so 
as to excite his own regret at the extent of it. I 
shall not comment on the facts as disclosed in the 
evidence. Acting as a juror, I shall judge them 
fairly, and, I trust, dispassionately; but I shall 
defer something to human frailty. Other gentle¬ 
men may decide in a different spirit. My nature, 
my education, teaches me to remember man’s 
infirmities. I have never prosecuted the pleas of 
the State; unless my opinions change, I never 
shall. I hope there are no old prosecuting attor¬ 
neys here. Their judgments are always severe: 
as bloody and unrelenting as the oldest butcher 
in the market. [Laughter.] I recall that remark, 
if any one regards it as “ personal.” 

The politicians throughout the country have 
seized upon this lamentable affair to advance their 
political ends. It has been known here from the 
beginning that the gentleman from South Carolina 
could not be expelled. I have thought that the 
politicians at the North did not desire it. Were 
It done by southern votes it would deprive them 
of much of their present political stock; but they 
will be most happy to get the whole South com¬ 
mitted to the proposition that the House has no 
power over the conduct of its members outside of 
this Hall. In that event, they will renew their 
appeals to the already inflamed masses at the 
North—point them to the former record of south¬ 
ern statesmen, and show our abandonment of it 
at a time when the accused is from our own sec¬ 
tion. Much as I regret this deplorable affair, 
because of the pain it has given to the immediate 
parties, I deplore it still more on account of the 
influence it is to have, 1 fear, upon political ques¬ 
tions yef. iPUsettled. It is mingled with consid¬ 
erations—^wi.th political questions, upon which 
depend, in a great degree, the future peace of my 


country, and the preservation of that standard 
of political morality, which all good men prize so 
highly. 

The public meetings which have been held in 
different sections of the country, with reference 
to this affair, have, at this juncture of time, a 
marked significance. When befoi-e did an occur¬ 
rence of this kind seem to awaken such popular 
demonstrations? Never. For all sbeh meetings, 
whether of sympathy, or condemnation, I have 
no word of approval. 1 listened, a few days ago, 
to the animadversions of a distinguished Senator, 
upon the action of northern Legislatures and 
popular assemblies, in regard to this case. His 
rebukes were just and deserved. 1 only regretted 
that he had no word of rebuke for those who, 
living in the South, have made themselves like¬ 
wise obnoxious to his censure. 

A word as to the resolution which censures the 
gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Edmondson,] and 
the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Keitt.] 
I shall vote against that resolution. It is partly 
predicated upon the allegation that they, “ some 
time previous to the assault, were informed that 
it was the purpose of the said Preston S. Brooks 
to commit violence upon the person of said 
Charles Sumner for words used by him in de¬ 
bate, as a Senator in the Senate, and took no 
measures to discourage or prevent the same.” I 
do not think it was ’the duty of either of these 
gentlemen to give notoriety to a disclosure v/hich, 
from its very nature, they should have regarded 
as confidential. It would, of course, have been 
different had they presumed Mr.. Brooks’s pur¬ 
pose to have been the infliction of dangerous or 
“ murderous” blows. But they had no right to 
presume any such thing, from the avowals of Mr. 
Brooks to them; and the proof does not justify 
any such presumption. Their position was a very 
delicate one. Mr. EoMUNDSONwas requested to be 
present as a witness—not to take any part in the 
alTair. He was not, however, present at the time 
of the assault. Mr. Keitt, it must be remem¬ 
bered, is the friend and colleague of Mr. Brooks. 
The gentlemen to whom Mr. Brooks communi¬ 
cated his purpose have been educated in a school 
which forbids such a violation of confidence— 
where the tattler and the “ tale-bearer” are de¬ 
spised. Mr. Brooks might have regarded them 
as not his friends, but his enemies. While many 
might have approved, they would have felt them¬ 
selves condemned. I say they have been edu¬ 
cated to hate the “ common informer”—a charac¬ 
ter always odious—so much so, that the pulpit will 
not screen from censure. I once heard of a good 
old deacon who, after long years of intemperance, 
had been induced to “join the sons.” Like all 
new converts, he was over-zealous. He imme¬ 
diately become a lecturer. On one occasion when 
liQ was holding forth, an old companion entered 
the church, very much “ under the influence of 
liquor. ’ ’ The deacon began to address his remarks 
to liim. He first persuaded—then grew vehement. 
At last he remarked, “ I will testify in the day of 
judgment that you are here drunk on the Sabbath 
day.” The offender could endure everything but 
this. Rising, he exclaimed, “ I do notcare if you 
do. The greatest rascals are sure to become 
evidence for the State.” [Great Laughter.] 


Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe. 





















J 








1 




V 






• .V' 


< " 


'•'If'. / 






f 


f 





i: 


• 'v. 








